Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hillary Clinton's Prescription: Make The World A NATO Protectorate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hillary Clinton's Prescription: Make The World A NATO Protectorate

    Australia.TO

    Hillary Clinton's Prescription: Make The World A NATO Protectorate

    Monday, 01 February 2010 11:37
    Written by Rick Rozoff

    Hillary Clinton
    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy in London and Paris
    last week advancing the new Euro-Atlantic agenda for the world.

    As the top foreign policy official of what her commander-in-chief
    Barack Obama touted as being the world's sole military superpower on
    December 10, she is no ordinary foreign minister. Her position is
    rather some composite of several ones from previous historical epochs:
    Viceroy, proconsul, imperial nuncio.

    When a U.S. secretary of state speaks the world pays heed. Any nation
    that doesn't will suffer the consequences of that inattention, that
    disrespect toward the imperatrix mundi.

    On January 27 she was in London for a conference on Yemen and the
    following day she attended the International Conference on Afghanistan
    in the same city.

    Also on the 28th she and two-thirds of her NATO quad counterparts,
    British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and French Foreign Minister
    Bernard Kouchner (along with EU High Representative Catherine Ashton),
    pronounced a joint verdict on the state of democracy in Nigeria,
    Britain's former colonial possession.

    Afterwards she crossed the English channel and delivered an address
    called Remarks on the Future of European Security at L'Ecole Militaire
    in Paris on January 29. That presentation was the most substantive
    component of her three-day European junket and the only one that dealt
    mainly with the continent itself, her previous comments relating to
    what are viewed by the United States and its Western European NATO
    partners as backwards, "ungovernable" international badlands. That is,
    the rest of the world.

    While in Paris, Clinton held a joint press conference with her
    counterpart Kouchner and said, "we...discussed the results of the
    London meetings on Yemen and Afghanistan. We have a lot of work ahead
    of us. We appreciate greatly the support that France has given in
    developing a European police force mission to support NATO in its
    effort to train police.

    "We will be consulting even more closely. Our work in Africa is
    particularly important. I applaud France for resuming diplomatic
    relations with Rwanda, and I also appreciate greatly the work that
    Bernard and the government here is doing in Guinea and in other
    African countries." [1]

    Rwanda and Guinea (Conakry) are former French colonies.

    Two days before she made a similar joint appearance in London with
    British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Yemeni Foreign Minister
    Abu Bakr Abdullah al-Qirbi. Yemen is a former British colony. The
    conference on that country held on January 27 also included the
    Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Prince Saud
    Al-Faisal, but not Secretary General Amr Moussa or any other
    representative of the 22-member Arab League.

    Having the foreign minister of the unpopular government in Yemen that
    the U.S. is waging a covert - and not so covert - war to defend
    against mass opposition in both the north and south of the nation and
    the foreign minister of the nation that is bombing villages and
    killing hundreds of civilians in the north was sufficient for the
    Barack Obama and Gordon Brown governments. A war on the Arabian
    peninsula whose three major belligerents are the Yemeni government,
    Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is not viewed by Washington and London as a
    matter that 20 other Arab nations need to be consulted about.

    Clinton delivered comments on the occasion that were exactly what were
    required to obscure the real state of affairs in Yemen in furtherance
    of her nation's military campaign there: "The United States is
    intensifying security and development efforts with Yemen. We are
    encouraged by the Government of Yemen's recent efforts to take action
    against al-Qaida and against other extremist groups. They have been
    relentlessly pursuing the terrorists who threaten not only Yemen but
    the Gulf region and far beyond, here to London and to our country in
    the United States." [2]

    Bombing Shia civilians in the country's north and resorting to the
    preferred "diplomatic" intervention of the last four American
    secretaries of state - cruise missiles - in the south in the name of
    protecting London from Osama bin Laden is yet another illustration of
    how a nation behaves when it doesn't have a formal diplomatic corps.

    In the same breath she added "The Yemeni people deserve the
    opportunity to determine their own future," when there was nothing
    further from her mind.

    She acknowledged that "a longstanding protest movement continues" in
    the south and that fighting in the north "has left many thousands dead
    and more than 200,000 displaced" - without in any manner alluding to
    Saudi armed assaults in the north and U.S. cruise missile attacks in
    the south - but her focus remained firmly on "extremists who incite
    violence and inflict harm." American bombs and missiles, of course,
    are nonviolent and harmless in the Secretary's us-versus-them view of
    statecraft.

    Clinton didn't miss an opportunity to dress down her nation's client
    Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh - "This must be a partnership if
    it is to have a successful outcome" - for his failure to adequately
    "protect human rights, advance gender equity, build democratic
    institutions and the rule of law." The U.S. may extend its
    Afghanistan-Pakistan war into the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of
    Africa [3] in nominal support of the Yemeni head of state and his
    Somali counterpart President Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, but they and
    their like - Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai and Pakistan's Asif Ali
    Zardari - should not for a minute forget who is in charge and who
    makes the rules.

    The secretary of state had nothing to say about the condition of human
    rights, gender equality and so forth in Saudi Arabia and America's
    other military vassals in the Persian Gulf. Medieval monarchies and
    hereditary autocracies that host American military bases, buy billions
    of dollars of advanced weapons from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and
    Northrop Grumman and are home to the U.S. 5th Fleet are not subjected
    to homilies on human rights and "democratic institutions."

    On the day of the London conference on Afghanistan Clinton, flanked by
    the foreign ministers of Africa's two former major colonial masters,
    Britain's David Miliband and France's Bernard Kouchner, also delivered
    a lecture to the government of Nigeria, ordering it to address
    "electoral reform, post-amnesty programs in the Niger Delta, economic
    development, inter-faith discord and transparency." [4]

    At the January 28 International Conference on Afghanistan, attended by
    the foreign ministers of all 28 NATO member states and dozens of NATO
    partnership underlings with troops in the South Asian war zone - the
    "international community" as the West defines it - Clinton
    complemented the Pentagon's allies and satraps:

    "I think that what we have seen is a global challenge that is being
    met with a global response. I especially thank the countries that have
    committed additional troops, leading with our host country, the United
    Kingdom, but including Italy, Germany, Romania." [5]

    She will need yet more troops in the near future for a far larger
    conflict than those the U.S. and NATO are currently involved with in
    Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia if the following comments
    contribute to the results they appear to intend:

    "I also had a chance to discuss Iran's refusal to engage with the
    international community on its nuclear program. They continue to
    violate IAEA and Security Council requirements.

    "The revelation of Iran's secret nuclear facility at Qom has raised
    further questions about Iran's intentions. And in response to these
    questions, the Iranian Government has provided a continuous stream of
    threats to intensify its violation of international nuclear norms.
    Iran's approach leaves us with little choice but to work with our
    partners to apply greater pressure...."

    Washington and its main NATO partners Britain, France and Germany
    along with miscellaneous allies around the world - "rogue" nuclear
    powers India, Israel and Pakistan among them (who know who to align
    with and purchase arms from) - dictate the terms on matters ranging
    from the proper holding of elections to which nation can develop a
    civilian nuclear power program. Any country outside the
    "Euro-Atlantic" and "international" communities faces censure,
    threats, "greater pressure" and ultimately military attack.

    The U.S. has a population of 300 million and the European Union of 500
    million, combined well under one-eighth that of the world. Yet the
    two, whose military wing is NATO, hold "international conferences" on
    Asia, the Middle East and other parts of the world and presume to
    deliver ultimatums to all other nations.

    To cite a recent example, the New York Times reported that "Secretary
    of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned China on [January 29] that it
    would face economic insecurity and diplomatic isolation if it did not
    sign on to tough new sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program,
    seeking to raise the pressure on Beijing to fall in line with an
    American-led campaign." [6] On the same day "The Obama administration
    notified Congress on Friday of its plans to proceed with five arms
    sales transactions with Taiwan worth a total of $6.4 billion. The arms
    deals include 60 Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot interceptor missiles,
    advanced Harpoon missiles that can be used against land or ship
    targets and two refurbished minesweepers." [7]

    Clinton has joined in the U.S. chorus of hectoring of China since she
    took up her current post last year, in May even raising the specter of
    Chinese penetration of Latin America.

    China is not Afghanistan or Yemen. It is not even Iran. The last
    generation's foreign policy hubris and megalomania of the West,
    epitomized by its wars in Southeast Europe and South Asia and the
    Middle East, may be headed into far more dangerous territory.

    Grandiosity, arrogance and perceived impunity blind those afflicted
    with them, whether individuals or nations.

    No clearer example exists than Secretary Clinton's remarks in Paris on
    January 29.

    To demonstrate the worldview of those she represents - that the United
    States and Europe are the incontestable metropolises and rulers by
    right of the planet - early in her address Clinton said "I appreciate
    the opportunity to discuss a matter of great consequence to the United
    States, France, and every country on this continent and far beyond the
    borders: the future of European security." [8]

    That is, the U.S. arrogates to itself the prerogative of not only
    speaking with authority on the security of a continent 3,500 miles
    away but intervening around the world in its alleged defense.

    Flattering her hosts, she further said: "As founding members of the
    NATO Alliance, our countries have worked side by side for decades to
    build a strong and secure Europe and to defend and promote democracy,
    human rights, and the rule of law. And I am delighted that we are
    working even more closely now that France is fully participating in
    NATO's integrated command structure. I thank President Sarkozy for his
    leadership and look forward to benefiting from the counsel of our
    French colleagues as together we chart NATO's future."

    Regarding the phrase "to defend and promote democracy, human rights,
    and the rule of law," evocative of almost identical terms used two
    days earlier in reference to Yemen, Clinton's Paris speech was fairly
    overflowing with similar language.

    The words recently have been tarnished and debased so thoroughly by
    the use they have frequently served - justifying war - that they are
    at risk of deteriorating into not so much noble as suspect
    abstractions.

    Worse yet, they are incantations employed to praise oneself for
    uniquely possessing them and to castigate others who don't. ["Our work
    extends beyond Europe as well....European and American voices speak as
    one to denounce the gross violations of human rights in Iran." But not
    in Saudi Arabia, Western Sahara, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,
    post-"independence" Kosovo, Estonia and Latvia, etc.]

    Clinton's speech contained these terms and phrases in the following sequence:

    democracy, human rights, and the rule of law

    unity, partnership, and peace

    global progress

    reconciliation, cooperation, and community

    security and our prosperity

    importance of liberty and freedom

    peace and security

    development, democracy, and human rights

    human potential

    democratic institutions and the rule of law

    progress and stability

    democracy and stability

    accountable, effective governments

    economic and democratic development

    expanding opportunity

    development and greater stability

    defend and promote human rights

    peace and opportunity and prosperity

    defending and advancing our values in the world

    a Europe transformed, secure, democratic, unified and prosperous

    The last is a variant of A Europe Whole And Free [9] first employed by
    President George H.W. Bush in 1989 to inaugurate his putative new
    world order.

    As will be seen by further excerpts from her address (as well as its
    location and context), Clinton's use of the above expressions was, as
    noted, both self-congratulatory and in contradistinction to the
    implied lack of what they pertain to in the world outside of the
    Euro-Atlantic community and its approved allies elsewhere.

    Again taking up the theme of Western superiority and the need for the
    Euro-Atlantic precedent to be enforced on others, she said "European
    security is, not only to the individual nations, but to the world. It
    is, after all, more than a collection of countries linked by history
    and geography. It is a model for the transformative power of
    reconciliation, cooperation, and community."

    However, "much important work remains unfinished. The transition to
    democracy is incomplete in parts of Europe and Eurasia." The
    subjugation of Europe's eastern "hinterlands" will be explored later
    in relation to her comments on the European Union's Eastern
    Partnership and related matters.

    "The transatlantic partnership has been both a cornerstone of global
    security and a powerful force for global progress.

    "NATO is revising its Strategic Concept to prepare for the alliance's
    summit at the end of this year here at (inaudible). I know there's a
    lot of thinking going on about strategic threats and how to meet them.
    Next week, at the Munich Security Conference, leaders from across the
    continent will address urgent security and foreign policy challenges.

    "The United States, too, has also been studying ways to strengthen
    European security and, therefore our own security, and to extend it to
    foster security on a global scale."

    To elite trans-Atlantic policy makers the above paragraphs' meaning is
    indisputable: The use of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
    military bloc - the true foundation of the "transatlantic partnership"
    - in waging war in and effectively colonizing the Balkans and in
    expanding into Eastern Europe, incorporating twelve new nations
    including former Warsaw Pact members and Soviet republics, is the
    worldwide paradigm for the West in the 21st century.

    That mechanism, using Europe as NATO's springboard for geopolitical
    aggrandizement in the east and the south, is being applied at the
    moment against larger adversaries than the bloc has tackled before
    now:

    "European security remains an anchor of U.S. foreign and security
    policy. A strong Europe is critical to our security and our
    prosperity. Much of what we hope to accomplish globally depends on
    working together with Europe....And so we are working with European
    allies and partners to help bring stability to Afghanistan and try to
    take on the dangers posed by Iran's nuclear ambition."

    "We have repeatedly called on Russia to honor the terms of its
    ceasefire agreement with Georgia, and we refuse to recognize Russia's
    claims of independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. More broadly,
    we object to any spheres of influence claimed in Europe in which one
    country seeks to control another's future. Our security depends upon
    nations being able to choose their own destiny."

    The final sentence is galling beyond endurance, coming as it does from
    the foreign policy chief of a nation with hundreds of thousands of
    troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and which with its NATO allies waged
    war against Yugoslavia and tore the nation apart.

    The one preceding it is equally absurd, as Clinton repeatedly insists
    on the right of the U.S. to be not only a major player on the European
    continent but the main arbiter of military, security, political,
    energy and other policies there while denouncing Russia - it didn't
    need to be named - for alleged designs to establish a "sphere of
    influence" in neighboring states.

    "Security in Europe must be indivisible. For too long, the public
    discourse around Europe's security has been fixed on geographical and
    political divides. Some have looked at the continent even now and seen
    Western and Eastern Europe, old and new Europe, NATO and non-NATO
    Europe, EU and non-EU Europe. The reality is that there are not many
    Europes; there is only one Europe. And it is a Europe that includes
    the United States as its partner....We are closer than ever to
    achieving the goal that has inspired European and American leaders and
    citizens - not only a Europe transformed, secure, democratic, unified
    and prosperous, but a Euro-Atlantic alliance that is greater than the
    sum of its parts...."

    For decades, indeed since the end of World War II, American leaders
    have been "inspired" by a vision of a Europe transformed and unified -
    under NATO military command and a European Union serving as the
    civilian, and increasingly military, complement to the Alliance.

    "NATO must and will remain open to any country that aspires to become
    a member and can meet the requirements of membership," even Ukraine
    where the overwhelming majority of its citizens oppose being pulled
    into the military bloc. ["We stand with the people of Ukraine as they
    choose their next elected president in the coming week, an important
    step in Ukraine's journey toward democracy, stability, and integration
    into Europe. And we are devoting ourselves to efforts to resolve
    enduring conflicts, including in the Caucasus and on Cyprus."]

    And should a nation be incorporated into the bloc even against the
    will of its people, then the U.S. "will maintain an unwavering
    commitment to the pledge enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty
    that an attack on one is an attack on all. When France and our other
    NATO allies invoked Article 5 in the aftermath of the attacks of
    September 11th, 2001, it was a proclamation to the world that our
    promise to each other was not rhetorical, but real....And for that, I
    thank you. And I assure you and all members of NATO that our
    commitment to Europe's defense is equally strong.

    "As proof of that commitment, we will continue to station American
    troops in Europe, both to deter attacks and respond quickly if any
    occur. We are working with our allies to ensure that NATO has the
    plans it needs for responding to new and evolving contingencies. We
    are engaged in productive discussions with our European allies about
    building a new missile defense architecture...."

    Washington is uncompromisingly bent on expanding NATO even further
    along Russia's borders - Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Finland -
    despite misgivings among some NATO allies in Europe, and will use the
    Alliance's Article 5 war clause to "protect" those new outposts. It
    will also drag all of Europe into its worldwide interceptor missile
    system.

    And not against military threats - there is no military threat to any
    European nation - but against a veritable plethora of phantom
    pretexts, including so-called cyber and energy security, both of which
    are subterfuges for the U.S. to intervene against Russia. A host of
    other ploys for NATO intervention were added, many from NATO Secretary
    General Anders Fogh Rasmussen's 17-point list of last year [10]:
    Iran's nuclear program, "confronting North Korea's defiance of its
    international obligations," "tackling non-traditional threats such as
    pandemic disease, cyber warfare, and the trafficking of children" and
    the "need to be doing even more, such as in missile defense,
    counternarcotics, and Afghanistan." Anything and everything is grist
    to the U.S.'s and NATO's mill.

    As Clinton put it, "In the 21st century, the spirit of collective
    defense must also include non-traditional threats. We believe NATO's
    new Strategic Concept must address these new threats. Energy security
    is a particularly pressing priority. Countries vulnerable to energy
    cut-offs face not only economic consequences but strategic risks as
    well. And I welcome the recent establishment of the U.S.-EU Energy
    Council, and we are determined to support Europe in its efforts to
    diversify its energy supplies."

    Diversifying energy supplies is a code phrase for driving Russia and
    keeping Iran out of oil and natural gas deliveries to Europe. If the
    tables were turned the U.S. would view - and treat - such a policy as
    an act of war.

    The global expansion of the American agenda in Europe was indicated
    further in Clinton's remarks that "This partnership is about so much
    more than strengthening our security. At its core, it is about
    defending and advancing our values in the world. I think it is
    particularly critical today that we not only defend those values in
    the world. I think it is particularly critical today that we not only
    defend those values, but promote them; that we are not only on
    defense, but on offense."

    And placing the current world situation in historical perspective, she
    said: "We are continuing the enterprise that we began at the end of
    the Cold War to expand the zone of democracy and stability. We have
    worked together this year to complete the effort we started in the
    1990s to help bring peace and stability to the Balkans. And we are
    working closely with the EU to support the six countries that the EU
    engages through its Eastern Partnership initiative."

    The Eastern Partnership is a U.S.-backed European Union program to
    pull six of twelve former Soviet repiblics that formed the
    Commonwealth of Independent States into the Western orbit: Armenia,
    Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. [11] Armenia and
    Belarus are members with Russia of the Collective Security Treaty
    Organization, a potential counterbalance to NATO's drive into the
    former Soviet Union. Along with Serbia and Cyprus, those nations
    represent the last obstacles to NATO, and behind it the U.S., securing
    control of all of Europe.

    Clinton also had the audacity to raise the issues of the Strategic
    Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the Conventional Forces in Europe
    Treaty (CFE), the first almost two months beyond its December 5
    expiration and the other, in its adapted form, not ratified by a
    single member state of NATO, which - led by the U.S. - is exploiting
    its suspension for military buildups in new Eastern European nations.

    "Two years ago, Russia suspended the implementation of the CFE Treaty,
    while the United States and our allies continue to do so. The
    Russia-Georgia war in 2008 was not only a tragedy but has created a
    further obstacle to moving forward...." The U.S. and NATO have
    justified their non-ratification of the Adapted Conventional Forces in
    Europe Treaty by demanding that Russia withdraw a small handful of
    peacekeepers it maintains in post-conflict zones in Abkhazia, South
    Ossetia and Transdniester. Had those forces been withdrawn earlier
    under Western pressure, Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia in 2008,
    coordinated with an attack on Abkhazia, might have proven successful
    for its American-trained army.

    Part of Clinton's self-serving interpretation of the CFE Treaty is
    "the right of host countries to consent to stationing foreign troops
    in their territory." That is, U.S. and NATO and decidedly not Russia
    troops. There can be no spheres of influence in former Soviet space -
    except the West's.

    Her understanding of an autonomous Europe not "besieged" by Russia and
    Iran - and North Korea - includes not only stationing American troops
    on its soil but also nuclear weapons, hundreds of which are still
    housed in NATO bases in several European countries. "President Obama
    declared the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. As
    long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe,
    secure, and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and we will
    guarantee that defense to our allies.

    "[W]e are conducting a comprehensive Nuclear Posture Review to chart a
    new course that strengthens deterrence and reassurance for the United
    States and our allies...." Clinton didn't indicate which European
    nations have requested to be placed under the Pentagon's nuclear
    shield.

    After her presentation Clinton answered questions from the audience at
    the French Military Academy.

    Her extemporaneous comments were even more revealing that her prepared text.

    They included:

    "When it comes to NATO, I think that greater integration on the
    European continent provides even more opportunity for the level of
    cooperation to increase.

    "But I think, given the complexity of the world today, closer
    cooperation and more complementarity between the EU and NATO is in all
    of our interests to try to forge common policies - economic and
    development and political and legal on the one hand in the EU, and
    principally security on the other hand in NATO. But as I said in my
    remarks, they are no longer separated. It's hard to say that security
    is only about what it was when NATO was formed, and the EU has no role
    to play in security issues."

    NATO's new Strategic Concept lays particular emphasis on the
    advancement - indeed the culmination - of U.S.-EU-NATO global military
    integration. [12]

    Regarding the implementation of that project, Clinton stipulated the
    issue of energy wars. "[I]t would be the EU's responsibility to create
    policies that would provide more independence and protections from
    intimidation when it comes to energy markets from member nations. But
    I can also see how in certain cases respecting energy, there may be a
    role for NATO as well."

    When asked about what in recent years has been referred to as Global
    NATO "extending the boundaries of NATO to non-Western countries,
    emerging powers like Brazil, India, other democracies that might
    fulfill their criteria," Clinton advocated a series of expanding
    partnerships in addition to the Partnership for Peace, Adriatic
    Charter, Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative,
    Contact Country, Trilateral Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO Military
    Commission and others that take in over a third of the nations in the
    world:

    "How do we cooperate across geographic distance with countries in
    other hemispheres, different geopolitical challenges? And there is a
    modern living example of that with the NATO ISAF commitment in
    Afghanistan.

    "In many ways, it's quite remarkable, the success of this alliance.
    Yesterday at the London conference on Afghanistan, as you know, the
    United States, under President Obama, has agreed to put 30,000 more
    troops in Afghanistan. And member nations, NATO and ISAF - the
    international partners - have come up with a total of 9,000 more
    troops....NATO is leading the way, but NATO has to determine in what
    ways it can cooperate with others. I think that the world that we face
    of failing states, non-state actors, networks of terrorists, rogue
    regimes - North Korea being a prime example - really test the
    international community. And it's a test we have to pass. Now, there
    are some who say this is too complicated, it is out of area, it is not
    our responsibility. But given the nature of the threats we face, I
    don't think that's an adequate response.

    "[C]yber security breaches, concerted attacks on networks and
    countries, are likely to cross borders. We have to know how to defend
    against them and we have to enlist nations who are likeminded to work
    with. Similarly, with energy problems, attacks on pipelines, attacks
    on container ships, attacks on electric grids will have consequences
    far beyond boundaries. And it won't just be NATO nations. NATO nations
    border non-NATO nations."

    A small consortium of Western nations, two in North America and 26 in
    Europe - though most of the latter are nothing more than slavishly
    subservient junior partners - has appointed itself, for its own
    interests, the arbiter of world affairs in all matters from judging
    the political legitimacy of governments to who receives energy
    supplies from whom to the most urgent question of all, when and
    against whom wars can be launched. [13]

    Clinton's speech in Paris has signaled her country's intention to
    formalize and extend that role throughout the world in the 21st
    century.
Working...
X